Just got mine today. Holy s*** I didn't want to leave a comment but i must now. This thing is too good. The treble, the details, down to the saliva sound / breathing sound of the singer is so detailed. Was using dt880 before and lost it and got this as replacement. Prefer it to have a little more bass like the dt880 tho but dt880 is semi open so.. But the bass on this is muddy at all accurate as f*********!!! worth it!

Some might think that the clamp is abit too much. Honestly like it just fine, the cushion is so soft that i don't even care about the clamp.

HD6XX(650s) are known as some of the most bass heavy hi-fidelity headphones on the market that are considered on the "Classics" bang for buck and overall popularity line. Beyerdynamic are known for highs and ruthless resolution but the bass especially the deep bass is always considered lacking.

Sometimes it's useful to try to imagine what people are hearing instead of relying on what's considered (or even measured) to be correct; i.e., what qualities a listener is associating with bass that would make them hear headphones with lighter bass as heavier.

One example: Sometimes a decrease in emphasis in the midrange can focus the listener's attention on the low end, which is one strategy used by companies that design detailed V-shaped headphones: They can create the impression of more bass by accentuating it without muddying the lower mids (since they're recessed).

My theory is that sheldonyong might be hearing a shift in the entire frequency range, which brings out certain qualities in the bass for him. Either that, or he's using an amp that's better at handling the DT880s' load (depending on what it is, which he hasn't told us).

Conventional audiophiles used to say that accurate bass is heard rather than felt, but telling people they shouldn't feel bass is like insisting they they haven't had a real orgasm unless they can remember it. No point in invalidating their pleasure in the name of exactitude (not that sheldonyong seems to mind new input).

I'm skeptical when someone who doesn't express their thoughts clearly describes someone else's thoughts as meaningless. I can't be sure they're interpreting the other person correctly, have good reasons for their opinions, or have said whatever it is they're trying to say.

Here's what I think you might be saying: "Your argument is completely wrong, so reading your post was a waste of time." (Though if you're attacking someone's argument, simply saying "your argument sucks" is an ineffective strategy. You're better off explaining why their argument doesn't work.)

I just noticed a two-page post by you about cable construction on this very thread, so I'm guessing you've got a better rebuttal in you and a detail-oriented POV.

About your earlier post: there's no such thing as "ruthless resolution." Used as a synonym for definition, resolution can mean an unforgiving (i.e., error-exposing) degree of detail, but resolution itself isn't actually cruel. Resolution isn't pursuing an agenda by any means necessary.

The problem with using that synonym at all in an audio context is that resolution means something else to musicians, audio engineers and consumers. In digital recording, resolution is tied to bit depth, which is why engineers rarely talk about it in any other sense.